Garlis Singho v. Oeeger Sitigho
1969Present:Strimane, J., and Samerawickrame, J.T. D. GARLIS SINGHO, Appellant, and T. D. GEEGER SINGHO andothers, Respondents
S. C. 142/67 (Inti/.)— D. C. Kalutara, 1046jP
Vendor and purchaser—Conditional transfer of property by co-owners—Subsequentre-trans/ei—Proportions to which the co-owners will be entitled then.
■Where property owned by co-owncrs is conveyed by them on a conditionaltransfer mid is subsequently re-transferred to them without specifying anyparticular proportions, the deed of re-transfer will bo construed to mean thatthe property was returned to them in the same proportions in which they heldit at tho time when they executed the conditional transfer.
(10-51) 52 A L. R. at 5G2.
SIRIMANE, J.—Garlia Singho v. Geeger Singho
Appeal from an order of tho District Court, Kalutara.
Frederick W. Obeytsekere, for the dofcndant-appollanfc.
Upali de Z. Gunawardene, with Asoka de Z~ Gunaicardene, foitho respondents.
May 5, 1969. Sibimabe, J.—
It is common ground that one Gcttohamy inhoritod a half sharo of thorights of her husband Hondrick Appu, and that the balance half sharepassed to Hendrick Appu's seven children. Tho widow and the sevenchildren on deod P2 of 1955, which is a conditional transfer, transferredthoir rights to ono Meolis Singho. Tho proporty was redeemed, and thowidow and tho seven children bought back the property- from “MoolisSingho on deed P3 of 1957,
That dood P3 does not set out tho proportions in which tho propertywas re-transferrod.
When the property which is conveyed on a conditional transfer ispurchased back by tho vendors, tho deed in thoir favour must beconstrued to moan that the property was returned to them in the sameproportions in which they hold it at tho time they executed the conditionaltransfer ; unloss thore is something in the deed of re-transfer which showsthat the property was being roturnod in proportions different to thosethey were entitlod to at the timo of their conditional transfer.
Thereafter on deed P4 the widow and the children gave anotherconditional transfer to Thomas Perera and Richard Porera. On deed P5of 1959, they onco again rodeemod the proporty. The property was soldback to the original vondors without specifying any particular proportions,and we think that the dood P5 should be construed to mean thattho proporty was returned back to Gottohamy and her children in thesame proportions to which they were entitled when they transferred it,on P4.
Thereafter, Gottohamy on deed P6 of 1959 transferred her half share totho first defendant who is one of her children. This is a clear indication,that there had boon no change in the extent of tho rights of herselfand her children.
In deod P4 thoro was a condition that if any ono or more of the vendorsshould rod-iom the proporty, the vondoos on that deed (P4) wereontitlodto ro-transfor tho property only to those who actually made the payments..But, in this caso, the retransfer was made to all tho vondors and thoreis no indication that any ono of them got more rights than they wereoriginally entitlod to.
New India Maritime Agencies Private Ltd.
v. The Ship “Barun”
Wo are of tho view that on deed P5 Gettohamy got back the rightssho was ontitlod to, viz., a half share of her husband’s property, and thochildren wore entitled to the balance half share in equal shares. ThoIntorlocutory Decree should bo amondod on this basis. Tho firstdefendant-appellant is ontitlod to tho costs of this appeal.
Samebawickbame, J.-—I agree.
T. D. GARLIS SINGHO, Applicant, and T. D. GEEGER SINGHO and others, Respondents